Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

May 15th at 6 pm. Can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Willers here. Commissioner O'Neal here. Commissioner Barnett, present. Commissioner Agorin Jenkins here. Commissioner Nent present. Commissioner Vladimir here. Youth member present and chair vice chair wick sorry present thank you I'd like to point out that chair dumbbach is absent from this evening's meeting do I have a motion to approve today's agenda so move second roll call please now commissioner Willers yes commissioner O'Neal yes commissioner Barnett I commissioner Jenkins I commissioner Nent I Commissioner Vladimir I vice chair Hyrick present yes youth member youth member Peterson yes the motion passes unanimously all right at this time we will stand for the pledge of allegiance if I could ask Mr. Vladimir to lead us please. Thank you very much. And at this time I will open the section of the meeting where we invite comments from the public. Any member of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda. It's recommended that members of the public keep their comments to three minutes or less. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for commission consideration. Upon being acknowledged by the chair, please step to the podium and speak into the microphone and begin by stating and spelling your name. Are there any

members of the public wishing to make a comment tonight on items app not appearing on the agenda? Yes. come forward. Please state your name. Hello. Hello. Here we go. Uh Carrie Gerster. I'm on East Spain Street. You guys probably remember me from the last comment I made about a month ago. Um I am here to talk about continued concerns with the Sebastiani land use proposal, which is what I spoke about last time. Um I and other residents remain very uh concerned about the density and breadth that's allowed under the current proposal. Uh we were all hoping that we could kind of pause the the current situation uh and reconsider before proceeding um given that they will have fairly dramatic impact on the city for many decades. Um, however, from what I can tell, it seems that the city is moving ahead. Uh, and I've heard that the EIR has begun. Uh, also from what I have heard, the next real opportunity to have any real significant impact is when the development codes are established, I think, which is about a year away. Not sure if that's right. Uh, so I'd like to request um that the commission um be a little more clear and specific. um about three things. Um first of all where we are in the process moving forward. Uh I follow this as you know and I was news to me that the EI was we were already in that part of the process. So that would be helpful. Uh secondly um at what points the feedback from the citizens will be most seriously considered. I feel like I've heard some conflicting things on that and I I honestly don't know. Uh and third, what is the most effective way to deliver our input? Um, so I do know we've been advised to have clear bullets of wants and don't wants and that makes a lot of sense to me. Um,

but it's not clear to me, you know, where, when, how, and with whom we discuss this information, and I'd love to understand that better so, uh, my neighbors and I can be more effective. Um, I'd also like to request that we hold some sort of meeting where there's more of a two-way dialogue that's permitted. Um, the idea of a study session has been mentioned as a possible vehicle for that. And um I know you can't respond to my comments in this forum, so I'm going to email this to you and perhaps some of you can reply to me that way. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Ken Stokes, ST Oes. You've seen me before. My comments will be a variation on the theme just presented. I'm also part of the Sebastiani Winery Neighbors Group who've been appearing at planning commission and city council meetings for some six months now. As you all well know, several of us have voiced our concerns and suggested alternatives to the proposed Sonoma mixed commercial updated land use designation for the winery property both in person and in writing multiple times. Without repeating the details, our concerns are primarily focused on the minimum and maximum proposed density requirements, both representing significant increases versus the surrounding neighborhood. The specificity and range of allowable commercial uses within the proposed mixeduse designation, specifically as it relates to visitor serving limitations around commercial uses. How best to assure the protection and maintenance of existing green and agricultural spaces. consistent with the city's vision and planning commission stated goals. And finally, the increased threat to residential safety in the event of a need to evacuate the area should there be any intense redevelopment of the winery property. However, given that non-aggenda item comment sessions like this one, not without good reason, I

understand, essentially are one-way streets where members of the public give input without a real opportunity for feedback or discussion. I therefore respectfully request that the planning commission arrange for a study session or equivalent opportunity wherein concerned members of the community community can engage in meaningful give and take, voice our concerns, share our suggestions, and actually have a discussion with representatives of the city regarding if or how our suggestions might be reflected in the general plan update andor the revision of the zoning and development code definitions that will inevitably follow. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. All right. Are there any other members of the public wishing to comment on any items not appearing on tonight's agenda? We have anybody on Zoom? All right. With that, I will close public comment and we will move on to the consent calendar. Uh, is there any commissioner wishing to pull any of the items listed on the tonight's consent calendar? Um, I will abstain from 4.1 because I was not in attendance. Uh, oh, no, no, excuse me. 3.1. Okay. All right. No other member of the commission. I will abstain on item 3.1 as well. I was absent and I will abstain from item 3.1 because I wasn't on the commission. Thank you. Okay. Uh seeing no further, do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar? Move to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Uh Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner O'Neal.

Yes. Commissioner Bernett. Hi. Commissioner Aborin Jenkins. Hi. Commissioner Nent. Hi. Commissioner Vladimir. Hi. Vice Chair Hyrick. Yes. Youth member Patterson? Yes. The motion passes with the first item 43 one and the rest of it passes unanimously. Thank you. That was quick. Okay, at this time I'm going to close the consent calendar and move on to our public hearing tonight. Item 4.1, discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a signed permit at 301 First Street West, including action to approve a categorical exemption. Staff report, please. Good evening, everybody. Um, so the item before you tonight is for 301 First Street West, the Stone Edge Farms. It's going to be the first floor of that building in the front. So, um, just a summary. Uh, so Stone Edge Farms is located in the downtown district planning area on First Street West. The site is approximately 7,500 square f feet with a 5,64 square foot historic ice house and a 1,631t wooden barn containing an 800 foot ADU common fitness area and a detached twocar garage as well as three tandems parking spaces out front. Uh the primary structure is historic and is contri and is a contributing element to the Soma Depot historic district. Um, and they have a 50 foot approximate frontage along First Street West for that whole parcel. This is the project site looking from the

street. And the proposed project is to install two new non-illuminated wall signs. One on the east building elevation along First Street West and one on the north building elevation over the French doors. This is wall sign number one is the proposed sign facing first street west. It's measuring 48 in wide by 30 in high for a total of 10 square f feet. And then second sign in the proposal is measuring 46 in wide by 18 in high for a total of 5.75 square feet. The total aggregate is 15.75 total. Um, if the planning commission can make the findings for both the basic findings as well as the findings for proposed signage within the historic overlay district. Then staff recommends approving the sign permit application for 301 First Street West subject to findings and conditions of approval. This concludes staff presentation. Um, and both staff and the applicant, I believe, are here and available for questions. Thanks. Great. Thank you, Natalie. Do any commissioners need to disclose any exparte communication with the applicant? Okay, seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward to address this topic? Neil Cwell, welldesigned premium signage. We're the project designer. I'm also joined by Stoneage Farm general manager Dorothy Chacheti who can answer questions that maybe aren't best for me to. Thank you to the commission for hearing this item as well as city staff for your work on this as well as moving the item to this planning commission from the DRHPC meeting which did not happen on Tuesday. We really appreciate it for the timeline of the project hopefully fingers crossed. So uh the design here is really designed to just be very cohesive with the building. We understand the

historic nature of it. The building is going to be you know open for appointment only tastings etc. So we need some type of brand identity. The branding is consistent with the long-standing Stone Edge Farm um identity, iconography, etc. Looking at just a uh very very tasteful and subtle treatment uh aluminum signage painted in sat finish, satin finishes, so it'll be uh won't be shiny or anything. The lettering is actually cut out of the face of it. So, we're playing with just contrast here. Uh it'll be primarily just visible to pedestrians that have already navigated and parked and walk up so that we're just affirming that they're at the right place. The uh primary sign that you can see here on this page on the bottom right corner is going to be centered above the plaque which commemorates the historic renovation of the property. And then the other sign which is on the north elevation is above the actual entry doors which are gained access through uh a walk on the right hand side of the parking. I'm I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone has. Any members of the commission have questions for staff or for the applicant? Okay, bring that back to the commission. Thank you for your comments. Uh I'll now open public comment for this matter. Uh seeing no members of the public, I will bring it back to the commission for comment. All right. Is there a motion? Well, I I I think that um you know, the signage is in compliance with our signage ordinance and I and I think it's complimentary to the building and those all the things that was presented by the applicant. So, I would vote to approve it. Is that a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the item as presented. I

second it. Roll call, please. Commissioner Wers, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Oman Jenkins, hi. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Vladimir, yes. Vice Chair Hyrick, hi. And youth member Penderson? Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chair. All right. I need to uh recuse myself from item 4.2 because of a proximity of a piece of property that I own. And so I will be departing and sitting outside you. I want to compliment you on your gavvel technique. By the way, well, when you have it, you might as well use it. And at this time, I would like to recuse myself for my financial interest in this project. And I will turn the gavl over to Commissioner Willers and his wonderful abilities. up to you. Thank you. A little rusty on this, but we'll proceed. Um, we're about to hear um item number 4.2. two discussion and cons consideration of possible action to approve design review variance and exceptions um for an addition to a single family residence built over 45 years ago located at 434 Patent Street um including actions to approve categor categorical exemptions pursuant to section 15303 15305 of the state SQL guidelines new

construction or conversion small structures class 5 minor alterations in land use limitations. Um, could I have the staff report? Good evening, commissioners. I'm associate planner Jake Dunn. This item is for the design review variance and exception of 434 Patent Street. The property is developed with a 1,577 foot single family residence, a 326qt cottage and a 138 ft shed on a 8,625t lot. The property is located in the central east planning area and historic overlay and is zone residential low density. The applicant is proposing a rear addition to expand the dining room, master suite, and laundry room, as well as an increased driveway width, new ground mounted equipment, and roof modifications, which will increase the overall height of the structure. The site plan shows the additions to the rear, including the removal of a sycamore tree to allow for a new patio area. The additions will maintain the existing side setbacks of the residence, which are non-conforming and will require the approval of an exception. An exception is also necessary for the increased height of the new ground mounted equipment that's located on the west side of the residence. Uh the other structures on the property will remain unchanged and the driveway width is proposed to be increased by uh 220 ft wide and within 5t of a utility pool which results in the need for a variance. So the current ordinance states that driveways shall be constructed to provide a maximum 14 feet uh 14 foot wide travel lane which can be somewhat restrictive and after reviewing the previous language of the section we found that the code didn't define width u but the new language was adopted in February of 2023. So the residence was built over 45 years ago and required a historic resource evaluation which found that the residents didn't qualify as historic under SQA. The existing elevations here show the design of the current residence

which the new construction is expected to be consistent with. So this is the front and rear elevations where you can see that the windows and garage door have been modified and the exterior door placement and sizes were altered. The front door will be relocated and replaced with a new solid core wood door stained white oak. The entry porch railing will be repainted to black beam. And at the rear, you can see that the roofs increased in height and now features skylights and a dormer window for aesthetics and lighting. All the new doors will be fiberglass or wood clad with fiberglass and the roof will be charcoal or dark gray composition shingles. So these elevations show the east and west side of the residence where the style of the existing structure mostly remains the same. New windows will be installed with do white fiberglass trim and black bean frames. The sighting will be made to match the existing shiplap sighting and painted do white. The project meets all the requirements of the development code except for the side setbacks, driveway width, and the distance from the utility pole. Um although the setback is non-conforming, the additions are consistent with the existing setback currently. So the project requires is required to meet the design review findings due to its age. It was found to be compliant with the development code and general plan. It doesn't have any historical characters that will be altered. The proposal is consistent with the adjacent development and preserves the environmental features in the front yard and maintains the landscaping in the rear. The historic resource evaluation determined that the residents uh yeah did not qualify as historic and therefore didn't need to meet the secretary of interior standards. These requirement for these findings was due to the historic overlay and so the proposal was consistent with the design standards and uh is not known to be located in near any historic resources. The adjustment to the driveway is consistent with the intent of the zone and the subject parcel can be seen as restricted from privileges that other properties in the same vicinity enjoy. Uh the location of the utility pool and strict application of driveway requirements uh further restricts property owner from utilizing the their

property uh in the way they would like to. The approval of the variance was not found to be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or injurious to properties that are in the vicinity. Uh in terms of the exception uh for setback and the increased equipment height, we found that it was consistent with the intent of the general plan. It doesn't change the use of the property at all. The additions will utilize the existing setbacks for consistency in design and the additions to the rear are not expected to impact neighboring properties. So staff recommends approval of the design review variance and exception at 434 patent street including the approval of categorical exemption pursuant to section 15303 and 15305. and staff's available for any questions and I believe applicant is present and would uh will be available to answer any questions as well. Thanks. Thank you Jacob. Jacob. Um any questions of staff from commission? Sure. Indulge me for my my newness. So um you know the side setback the seven foot side setback from a philosophical standpoint is there any the reason for the setback requirement is mostly privacy was there any concern about like fire safety things along those lines you know what's what's the what's the reason for seven feet my understanding is it's both those things it can be privacy as well as fire um fire is more has a shorter setback is three. Um and so when you come up to development code, we would like to increase that just also for the purpose of kind of leaving space between homes. Um for that purpose, so so the fire department doesn't care whether if you're building within seven feet of the correct. Okay. Yeah. As long as they have three feet of clearance to be able to pass. And then the driveway requirement being at a maximum of 14 ft. So, I actually walked down Pat Street today. Um, and I think every other driveway, including the most recent construction right next to it to the

west, is more than 14 feet wide. Is there has there been conversations about changing the code? Because it surely doesn't seem to be an enforceable kind of We researched this recently. It was something that was changed in 2023 and so we're trying to figure out what the purpose of it was, the intent. It was increased. It was decreased to 14 ft in 2023. Yeah. So the property to the west fell under the prior That's correct. So So what's the why the why ignore that? If you've had a a change of the code to maximize the distance at 14 feet, why decide to say, "Hey, we can go to 20." Uh the applicants requesting a variance for it. So why did you fail? It was a appropriate um due to the findings for uh properties in the vicinity. also have the um have a driveway that's larger than that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. No other questions. Um then I'll open it up to the applicant if there's wait. Would you like to approach? Did we disclose any exparte communications? Sorry. No, you're good. Has have any of the commissioners had exparte with the applicant. Okay. Wayne Hyrick, uh, 392 Saunders Drive in Soma. I just wanted to say hi. Um, that's really it. I'm here to answer any questions with respect to the driveway. I I had the same question about why the 14 foot requirement. I think the the intent was to on the east side of town, the intent is to have garages built in the rear

instead of in the front of the property and the access to those garages. Um they wanted to make a narrow relatively narrow, not a two-lane driveway to get to those garages. So I think that was the intent of the 14 foot. I don't think it was well written um because the way it's written right now, it effectively prohibits twocar garages on the east in the RL zone and I don't think that's what is intended. So, uh happy to answer any other questions. Any questions the applicant? No. Okay, we'll bring it back. Close the public hearing. Um discussion and I'll open the public comment at this point. Any comments? No, I'll close the public comment. Anyone would like to make comment about it or a motion? Um, I don't remember when we changed the driveway. So, I'm curious who remembers that and what our thinking was associated with it because I really sorry forgotten. Well, it is I I I do think that it's related to what Mr. Wyrick said and that is that our zoning code essentially requires um it requires uh garages to be set back 20 ft from the face of the building from the front of the building. um that's the basic zoning requirement. And so the driveway access to that um is held to a minimum from a so that you're not producing a two-car garage out of the driveway essentially in the public space. Um given the fact that we have many

historic, you know, many buildings over 45 years old, many buildings um that are already developed with two-car garages within that 20 ft um with in fact in front of the the building, the face of the building. Um that's the problem in the language I believe. So there's no accommodation at this point or recognition of an existing condition. So we end up with a variance issue. A question. Is it currently a onecar garage? And so when I was looking at the um the documents, this will now accommodate two ve the driveway will accommodate two vehicles and essentially get off of um patent which is incredibly narrow and you can't walk your dog or push it. you know, a child's buggy or I mean, it's I I can see the concern from a just from a safety standpoint as well as um um you know, security to your vehicles, etc. If I may, I I totally agree. That's the reason that we um created the additional parking space in the front is because we've had mirrors ripped off of our vehic uh um vehicles because four cars um you know cars parked on each side plus two cars passing just doesn't work on that section of Patton Street. And um so we felt from a safety perspective it would be better to have um a place to park two vehicles instead of uh parking on the street. Um, it's the least favorite item that I we're requesting for sure tonight because we don't like a lot of house fault. We're hoping to do

some treatments that will um sort of minimize the the viewing of it. But um and that's the other problem with the section the code section is that it doesn't while the drive aisle I I I mean I could leave the existing driveway approach the way it is and expand the drive what what could be considered the driveway but the driveway width could be 14 call it 14 feet and then put walkways on both sides and effectively could park there. So, we don't want to do that. We want to widen the approach if we can and and and be able to park two cars. And it looks like it was um the application looked like it was more like pavers or as opposed to just asphalt. Well, we're we're trying to decide how we're going to do it. Um if cost allows, we want to do a treatment that look that gives the appearance of a narrower driveway. even though um uh it you know it's going to be 20 ft wide whatever paved surface we end up with currently it's concrete. Thank you. Okay. I like the design. I like that you're keeping the vintage style. I was really mad when that house next door got approved. I'm the only one who voted against it. I'm still mad about it. I like that you're keeping it single story. I think all of this looks really good and I can totally be in favor of it. Um, one comment, we don't say master suite anymore. We say primary suite. Um, so I would change that. Um, but um, I get what you're saying there, but overall it looks like a really good project. Stephen was just asking me if that's true. And in my line of work, um we have

been and we are now reprimanded if we in any kind of um um you know promoting or marketing any kind of a property. You cannot use the word master. It now needs to be used uh the word is primary and you can't say things like walkability to the plaza. You can't it's it's considered um discriminatory. So that's correct. And that's the life that you and I lead with this. Yeah. Any other comments? Someone like to make a motion. I'm good. You've made them all. I make a motion that we approve this as presented. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins. Yes. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Vladimir, yes. Commissioner Willis, yes. And youth member Person? Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Commissioners in the hallway can reapproach. It was close enough.

Okay. Where am I? Here we go. All right. Moving on to item 4.3. discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a use permit, design, review, and variance for renovation and addition um at 310 Second Street East. Staff report, please. All right. So, this next item is for the use permit, design, review, and variance at 310 Second Street East. The property is developed with a 2,829 foot duplex on a 6,672 foot lot. The property is located in the northeast planning area and historic overlay and is zoned uh medium density residential. Design review is required due due to the age of the structure and the historic resource evaluation was conducted which found that the residence does not qualify as historic under SQL. The design review includes changes to the windows including new newly installed windows, sighting color and new stairway to the second floor. The applicant also proposes an interior renovation on both floors and in addition to the first floor to accommodate a new living room, bedroom, and dining room. Roof modifications are also proposed on the garage to add a deck that will be accessible from the second floor tenants. The site plan here shows where the new one-story addition will be located in the rear along with the roof deck above the garage and a new stairway. The additions will be consistent with the existing setbacks of the duplex which are considered non-conforming and the approval of the proposal will be dependent on the uh approved variance for what parts on this drawing indicate the additions. Oh, at the rear of the property on the uh to the east you'll see it says new onetory edition. Where does it say that? Oh, okay. Thank you. Pardon my old eyes. Oh, that's okay. So this is the existing and proposed elevations for the front of the duplex

which shows the changes to the siding, doors, uh windows and entryways. The lower 15 ft of duplex will be smooth finished stucco painted a warm sand color and the remaining portion will have a warm brown vertical wood siding and all windows will be replaced with energy efficient windows painted Bahama brown. This elevation also shows the proposed deck uh cover which is intended to provide shading and will sit on stuckleclad columns and painted to match the stuckco sighting. This is the rear of the duplex where you can see the existing patio which will be removed along with the exterior door to the second floor. The first floor edition will extend into the rear and include more windows, a new door and a larger sliding door. The second floor porch edition can be seen clearly from this side uh on the north elevation with changes to the existing windows and the design. The chimney is also planned for removal and the roof shingles will be replaced with weathered copper roofing. And then on this side you can see the new stairway from the south elevation which is more flush with the front of the duplex and new windows which will be installed to provide more light to the units. The proposed project is compliant with all of the development standards of the northeast planning area except for the setbacks. The additions will not extend further into the setbacks, but the consistent uh but to to be consistent with the existing setbacks, the applicant needs a variance. The project requires the approval of a use permit for the renovation of a non-conforming structure and it was found that the use of a duplex is consistent with the intent of medium density residential zones and the project promotes an innovative design. The proposal doesn't alter the existing use and the renovation of the duplex does not impair the architectural integrity of the residence or the duplex and will enhance the character of the units for the tenants. The proposed work is in conformance with all the other applicable provisions of the code and does not expand upon the non-conformity. The changes are not going to result in increased height or setback and the proposal doesn't include replacement of more than 50% of the original floor area. The pro the project uh complies with the

general plan by promoting higher density development without imposing rigid stylistic restrictions and the proposal also promotes innovative designs to make the duplex more livable for the tenants that are there. Um, since this project was located in the historic overlay, uh, it had to meet additional findings. Um, and given that it was not found to be historically significant, it didn't need to meet the secretary of interior standards. And a proposal is consistent with the design standards and doesn't have historical characteristics uh, that will be altered. It's also not expected uh to impact historical character of adjacent properties and the adjustment is consistent with the intent of the zone district uh and the existing setbacks which are non-conforming but will be maintained. the variance is not going to grant any special privileges as a standard setback uh will be consistent with the original. And the proposal uses the duplex uh to its full extent and provides the tenants with a more livable space that be that wouldn't be detrimental to health safety or welfare. Staff recommends approval of the use permit design review and variance at 3102nd Street East, including action to approve a categorical exemption pursuant to section 15301 and 15305 of SEO guidelines. The applicant's present and would like to speak on behalf of the project and then staff is available for any questions. Thanks. Would the applicant like to come forward? You just state your name, sir, for the record. Good evening. My name is Glenn Ekamoto, 324 Second Street East. My wife, Kim Belchamber, and I are the owners of the uh duplex. Um before I begin, I would like to thank the commission for the opportunity to address this and I want to commend the work of the staff. Uh they were responsive, respectful, helpful. The

work was superb. Um, I'd like to give you some background on on uh we acquired this property in July of 2018. It's immediately adjacent to our home. Uh, and in fact, we border this uh property on the south side and the east side. So, of the neighbors, we are two of the three. Um, again, it's adjacent to our house. uh we did not buy it for investment. We bought it uh because it has a significant impact on our property and we wanted to control what is done with it and who lives there. Um it was designed and built as a rental. Um but we wish to convert it to the lower floor acting as the full-time retirement home for our best friends who uh for me I've known for 54 years. Um and we want it to feel like a single family home as much as possible. Uh the upper unit will remain a rental u the public uh because we did not want to reduce the amount of of residences in in the city. Uh we are here seeking a side uh setback variance. The existing building is 5.3 5' 3 in of current setback which I believe was within the code at the time the structure was built but the current code requires a 7 foot setback and that would be applied to the addition not to the existing structure. We are adding 8 and 1/2 ft uh to the back of the house which is uh 24 ft long. Uh so we're adding eight and a half feet to a non-conforming wall but within

exactly the same setback. And obviously we don't want to go to seven feet on the addition and have a twoft jog in the primary bedroom. Um also what's important to realize that that is the wall that that can carry the window the only window in the bedroom. So again we don't want to put a jog in that wall. Um, we are the only neighboring property to this variance, both on the side and the back. Nobody else is affected but us. As far as the building goes, the existing building is a bland, cheap, um, ugly structure. uh including the garage doors which are the primary things that the public sees. Um all the windows are the lowest cost aluminum single pane windows you can find and the only way you can open them is with a significant amount of jiggling. Um all the plumbing is galvanized. The electrical is undized. The heating is minimal. The duct work was designed for cost and not for warmth. There's no AC and worst of all, there's no Ethernet. So, the new building or the remodeled building will have high ceilings between 9 and 10 feet, copper plumbing, uh, modern smart home electrical, and highly efficient HVAC systems. As far as the neighborhood goes, it's going to be a beautiful building when we're finished with it. It was designed by an award-winning architect. Uh, it's got high-end finishes inside and out. The

architectural features include that beautiful Spanish arched stairway to the upper unit and the terrace above the garage deck. We've already had a huge landscaping upgrade, including three 170 year old olive trees. We decided to conform our front yard and this building's front yard since they were adjacent to each other. So, it's got 370 year old olive trees. It's got a new front patio and brand new sidewalks. Again, we had to redo our sidewalks and we decided, you know, these are pretty worn and dated and let's just do it right. Uh staff has informed us that our neighbor has cons expressed concerns about uh dust and noise and parking. We are stripping all the stuckco off the building and uh it was already planned to use scaffolding with dust shields. That's pretty standard when you're stripping stuckle. Um we may use a crane to take the roof off in large pieces. So there shouldn't be any dust in that procedure. If we decide to take it apart in place, um the demolition contractor will be told to evaluate the dust generation and decide whether to add another level to the scaffolding. Um, we're going to evaluate that once we get into the structure. Again, we are next door, so we have the same concerns about dust. In fact, we're downwind, so we have more concern. Uh, as far as noise, uh, construction noise is regulated. There are specific times when you can construct. Obviously, we won't comply with all of those regulations. As far as parking, we will tell the contractors not to park north of the property line, which is where our neighbor's home is. There's plenty of parking on that street during the

workday. Shouldn't be any problem at all. The crew is probably three three carpenters and and uh the trades come in in cycles, so there shouldn't be many trucks at any one time. Our house has a very very very deep driveway so we can accommodate any trucks that uh can't find parking north of the property line or south of the property line. Uh in conclusion, um we're trying to uh take the ugly duckling and make it into a swan. Uh we've got a very high-end construction team built our home. Uh we invite the commissioners to visit the our home to see the quality of the work. Um, and we're asking for a variance so we can get started. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Are there any commissioners that need to disclose expporte communications with this applicant? Okay. There any uh commissioners that have questions for staff or for the applicant? Yes, Miss O'Neal. Um, yeah, if staff can help me with this. I always get caught up in this. If there's a non-conforming use, we're not allowed to increase the intensity and I can't remember the verbiage with that and I couldn't find it in the code, but if you guys could help me with that piece that I've been Yeah. So, you don't want to increase the intensity of the use and then as well as you don't want to go over 50% of the original floor area or the external walls. We do have that. There it is. There these are the four findings for non-conforming structures and that that in terms of um increasing its the use potential and things like that that's what needs to be restricted.

So with the request for the variance for that side um so the only thing that would be a because we're not um so but the a is the addition um or improvements conform to all other applicable provisions of this development code. Um so everything is meets all the code standards. It's just that one setback um for that and when we talked about um uh everything else it like we were saying it meets the code but you can approve the variance. So this these findings are more of you know if we wanted to just do a use permit and they didn't want to do anything else this is what it would apply. Um, with the prior project that we just looked at, you're approving the whole project as basically a new home. Um, because they are adding more than 50%. So, they're not basically approving the house as it's with the addition as a new home. Um, in this case, this is the only little trigger um for that and it is a it is a conforming use of land. There any other questions from the commission for city staff or the Okay, at this point I'd like to open public comment on this matter. Miss Claudia, I saw your hand raised. You'd like to Well, I know. Okay. Listening to you guys. And if you just state your name. Claudia Ranaker, 3002nd Street East. In listening to you talk about Wayne's project. Oh, could you put the layout, the pictures, and the safety issue came

up about Well, I couldn't help but notice looking at this plan that if you'll see on the top of the page there, it shows the top of the um whatever that's going to be, then the building, and then it immediately goes to shrubs, and that's the where the variance is applying in there. Well, those shrubs are going to block access See where they're at the corner of the building? Nobody will be a I just saw that case and then I noticed on the other side it's not wide enough. So that is blocked basically. How will somebody get through that access? That's the first thing I saw from listening to you guys. The safety thing. Then the other thing is the property is going to be raised up. I forgot 32 feet I think or 32 inches I believe and they did that by putting 20 inches of soundproofing that I think could be more than needed. I don't know because I it if I recall it only takes 10 inches but there are different ways of that. I just because he said it is going to be ra Oh, here's that it is going to be raised up and okay and why I'm here can't see uh yes it was because of the dust and they are not in the line of sight because the whole backyard that exists today is full of shrubbery then it goes shrubbery here on the right side backyard sideyard They have a building there with shrubbery between the unit and that they don't then no dust is going their

way. We have a six foot sixoot fence 4 feet of which is solid and then there's wire up ahead on top of it. The dust will come our way but I spoke to a friend of mine who's a contractor and contractors kind of in a way have to protect you. I'm only concerned with the tear down. I don't care about the building up. I love construction. It's the tear down toler and I experienced the tear down of the property that they live on which is two lots connected together. We had every kind of heavy equipment you could imagine tearing everything down. I I could smell gasoline and crashing and terrible. And I thought this is what it's like at the rainforest, the aggression, the taking it out. So I also am kind I guess affected by that and I'm sure that this isn't going to be that crazy naked and if it is I'll deal with it. You guys are around. So that I wanted to say that I yes we will have quite a bit of dust and I wanted to point out that yes it is going to be raised and because they're putting one foot and then 20 inches of sound stuff that I'm not sure is completely necessary but I don't care what they do. So, I just wanted to point that out. Oh, and then my most concern is yes, I had suggested we that I had suggested that because we have uh up the going up the patch, there's no parking beyond this point, so nobody's there. Then on Casagnaso's side, there's pe there's parking in that area, too. There was a problem. People complained about the parking during the first build, which yes, took three years. This one, I'm sure, is going to be shorter and not as many tradesmen, but it's there's nothing like coming to

your when you're done at night, coming home, and everything is in order, and you can park where you want. I I would like to know if you guys could put designated parking during this construction because you have the opportunity to do that. In other words, to not have the the area be whoever many people come. If I'm making a point, you have an opportunity to be considerate to the neighborhood is the point I'm trying to make. When construction people come in, everybody's trying to get here and get there. That's my main concern right now is making it as as normal as they can for the neighborhood. We've had the three-year experience, so I think I've hit them. I'm concerned about people going around there. The dust, I'm sure, is going to be okay. I'm okay with building. It's destruction I can't tolerate. And parking. And if anything comes to my mind later, I'm sure I'll be back. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'll allow a quick response. Yes, sir. First of all, as to our three years of construction, that was COVID. So, we had a fivemonth delay. And once we were and that was a legal delay. You couldn't go. And once we came out of that delay, of course, all of our subs were already back five months. And so, there was another five-month delay. So, that was that was COVID construction. Um, the other thing is, uh, 20 inches of soundproofing. I think she misread the plan. It's 2 in. And, uh, yes, the building is getting higher because we're raising the interior ceiling heights, which is in

today's world desirable. And we made sure we kept below the 30-foot limit. So, we're within the allowed limit. And as far as the setback, I couldn't really figure out what she's talking about. She pointed to the to the top setback with a there's no variance there. The variance at the bottom. So I don't know what that meant. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? Okay. One last quick response, Claudia. Thanks. Um, do you guys have the plan? Do you guys have the plan of it? It shows the 20 in of of foam insulation of not it probably is foam insulation. That's why it's 20 in. Sir, if if you'd keep your comments addressed towards the commission. Um, uh, do don't you guys have the plans? We we do have the plans, but that's not before us tonight. Okay. So, that I do want to say and that it may have been CO, but when it was CO, they weren't doing any construction like you just said. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Are there any members of the public who have not yet spoken who wish to address the commission on this issue? Okay, I'll bring it back to the commission for commission comments. Commissioner Willers. Okay. So, um I I want to keep it to the item that's in front of us, and that is essentially the two-foot variance. Um it's on the southern property line of the addition. Um we've in the past approved these, in fact, earlier approved um these forms of variances. It's very

common that um these buildings were built at a time when the setbacks are only um five feet on either side um and combined um as a normal setback requirement. Uh I don't think that I don't think any of the other construction essentially is within our jurisdiction. Um in terms of control, it it complies with our building code as well as our development code. So um for me, I can make all the findings for the variance. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Miss O'Neal. Um I do have a question for staff. Um a point that Claudia made about parking. My concern and I'll do respect Claudia isn't Claudia's house the bike path. So what do we have? Do we have any kind of ability to just ensure that we have um a safe area there? Because that bike path is heavily used right there. And I'm just wondering what our options are. So, um, because it's a crossing, with the new state law, you have a 20 foot subback that you can't park in. And it's not red. It's just, um, if a deputy drives by, they can be ticketed. So, it's 20 feet from any crossing now. Okay. So, we could just at least make that clear with the, uh, contractors that that set back. Yeah. He sounded like he uh was going to make his contractors go only in front of his house and this house instead of and that is enforcable by um I mean it's anybody could call in to say sheriff there's a car parked in the bike path setback in the bike path setback. Yes. Anybody can call on that. Okay. I have a question. It's related to that.

Is that actively um we are being pursued I'll say yes because it's happening everywhere right so we're doing the soft touch right now we just give little not tickets but a little information sheets yeah of just hey this law changed um because it's nobody really knows about it it's very hard to know about it and then in key areas Um, and if there's areas where there's major conflicts, um, we were talking about them actually last night, um, at the climate action commission meeting with the public work director is any areas where there's major conflicts, we're going to red curb, but we don't want to red curb the entire city. And so we're um did the plaza area and Broadway um and then if there's other areas like in we talked about in front of Whole Foods and those crosswalks to start and I suggest the corner of First Street West and MacArthur often parked in that on both corners there and it makes it very difficult to maneuver onto the street as well as see. on following on that. How are we educating people that there is this new setback that we can't park there? Is there a sign that says no parking or how how would you how would you know that you're a scoff a nice little note on your car? Um it was in the paper like that's how I found about it. I found about it on Facebook actually um from another city making a posting. Um I know that our city's posted and things like that but we can talk about that later. Okay, let's talk about that later. Red curbs are not a bad idea. Thank you. Any other comments from the commission on this

item or Commissioner Barnett? Old habits die hard. Um I just want to touch on the uh procedure if a neighbor becomes concerned about dust. So what are what are the remedies available if um if a neighbor feels that there's some condition developing that uh is either potentially hazardous or otherwise troublesome. they need to contact the city and then that way that the city staff can let the building inspector know at that time to and then we can request them to go by while they're doing their inspections um to have conversation and observe themselves because we need to observe it ourself as well. Um and sometimes we don't get told for days and then we go and nothing's occurring. So we always ask that it's in in the moment. So you can are you indicating that the city can respond quickly to a to a a call of concern? We that day typically our inspector is out in the field already and so it's just a matter of calling him to swing by. Okay. Thank you. Any other commission comments? Okay. I'll weigh in and just say that on the narrow item that's before us tonight, which is a variance for a setback. Um, it seems on balance to not be that intrusive or that uh detrimental to the the health and the vitality of the neighborhood. Um, we can't litigate really any other issues tonight um that

relate to that construction project. And I I do appreciate the offer of good faith by the applicant to make sure that those nuisance issues are you know addressed and that um thank you and that uh you know the neighborhood remains a happy healthy place to be. U with that said I I have no problem supporting the approval of a variance. Well with that Unless there's further discussion, I would make a motion to approve the use permit, design, review, and variance for a renovation and addition with reduced setback standards uh for a non-conforming duplex located at 310 Street East. Is there a second? Second. Great. N roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Commissioner Barnett, hi. Commissioner Borman Jenkins, hi. Commissioner Nent. I. Commissioner Latimer. Yes. Did I say that right? Perfect. Okay. Vice Chair Wyrick. Hi. Youth member Person? Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. Thank you. It must be the way the meeting must be the way the meeting's being run. It's the gavl. Yeah. Okay. Moving on to item 4.4. Consideration discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution approving an application use permit design review exception for reduced setback for a uh live work two live work units located at 369 West Napa Street. And if we could

have a staff report, please. I'm gonna try to I'm gonna try to keep my voice. I may Can you hear me? Yeah, you can hear me like this. Okay. So, I won't talk with my normal volume. Um, so this project is located actually behind 369 West Napa Street. Um, we have not provided an address to this location yet, waiting for the units. And then we will provide um in this case two um if it's approved we get two addresses. Um so this is again the rear unit. This was approved uh lots split was approved in 2021 for this location. It is in our mixed use and in the historic overlay on the west Napa Soma corridor and the lot is about 8,000 square ft. Um as already presented it's two live work units that are being proposed. The garage um is a twocar garage with a second floor artist studio and then there are three parking spaces being provided to um within that garage. Um it is again located at the rear of the lot. The proposed live work units are modern in design with primary materials of vertical wood siding, dark metal roof and large metal framed windows. While the building located in the front is an updated craftsman house used for office purposes, the modern design in the rear does not detract from the the structure as seen from the public right away. Here is the site plan. Um the closest um structure is the garage will be set back from the front building off 369 100 ft. The existing office space use and parking for that use will remain in that front lot and the proposed project is solely

located on that rear lot including that fire turnaround that you see. The big gray hatch is that fire turnaround requirement. Can you use a pointer or something because I am lost. Sure. uh laser pointer. And and just as one other question, the cross street, this is uh between third and and fifth. Uh is it on the south side of the street? I'm trying to locate in my mind the property the the office that's in the front at the moment. Is it at the Granco office building? Exactly. Good job. Okay. Thank you. Um, so yes, it is the south side of the street. So it's next to the multifamily, the white multif family building. Um, and then a commercial building next to it on the other side. Um, so you see the rear parking lot and then you see the multif family here and then there's multif family back here. And here is Napa. And on the site plan, so this is the front lot that faces 369. This is 369, sorry, that faces West Napa. This that you see here are the rear um parking spaces behind that house that's turned into an office. The lot starts right here. So, it's a shared um access. The lot starts here and then here's one parking spot. Here's the other two and here's the required fire pull. So, the fire truck needs to be able to turn around. This is the live work units with the artist studio above the garage. So, again, here is the neighboring multifamily that is to the west, their parking, and then here's the

building that is on the east and then their parking lot is back here. Does that help? Okay, thank you. So north is actually on the right side. So north would be the right. Correct. And so here are the proposed elevations. And for um just for going again to this is the north here on this elevation that you're looking at. This is the east elevation. So here's the north. Here's the garage artist studio. And then here is the rear property line and fence, the rear of the structure. And this is what we're going to talk about um for the request um for the exception for the um basically an intrusion or a setback into the required setback on this upper level. And then this is the west side. So again, this is the rear of the structure. And this would be the front. So here's the garage. There is a covered walkway that joins the two buildings. And then here are the north elevations, the main building and then the garage. And then here we have um south elevation for the garage. It's not an ADU. Please ignore that part. And the south elevation. It's not not an ADU. It cannot be an ADU. It is not an ADU. All right. Um so the analysis is that it does comply with the front setback. Um it is uh 31

ft um behind um that property line. The garage setback. However, for this specific property, the garage is in front of the main building. It is not visible from the street. So, maybe some further clarification when we in the future look at that again. Um, but it is in front of the main units. Um the side step back for the lower level does meet the requirements but the second level does not. There is no step back being proposed and that um the requirement again for this area is 2 feet for every 5t of height above 15. The rear is 15 feet. The lower level again on the rear meets it, but there is that second level projection that I showed you that encroaches four feet into that setback. It does meet the F and the site coverage and the height for the live work units. Um so each unit is colorcoded. So one unit is green, the other unit is blue. This is the lower level showing workspace versus um residential space. There is a kitchen on the lower [Music] level. The upper level does contain the um residential um bedrooms. Not going to say master um just bedrooms and the artist studio above the garage. In looking at the requirements for live work, there is a minimum 700 square foot. It does meet that. The average is 1,200 square feet. it does not meet that average. It is 14.97, so almost 1500 square feet. Um, so there is a request for an

exception to that. The residential max is 70% of the area of the unit and with a minimum work area of 300 square feet and it does meet that for each unit when you include the artist studio with the unit one. Again, parking is three spaces. It's one and a half spaces per unit. An open space is uh 250 square feet of open space per unit combination of public and private or they have provided over 3,000 square ft of common open space. So the project does propose residential and commercial development on a site designated by the general plan as mixed use and at a density that complies with the mixeduse land use designation as well as applicable intensity standards. The live work use itself compatible with the surrounding and future uses as is located behind an office and adjacent to multifamily and commercial housing and commercial uses. Also with live work density does not apply. planning commission has the ability to determine that um it does comply with our design review findings. Um and it is um consistent with design standards in the development code and also within the context of adjacent development and in the historic overlay. It is not historic. the building in front. I do not have evidence that it's historic, but regardless, it is set back over 100 feet um from that structure um and probably would not be visible given the um uh location on the site at the at the far rear um as well as the grade differentiation. An exception is required to exceed the average unit size and to encroach four feet into the rear setback for a portion of that upper level. Staff has provided findings for these exception requests

and believes the request does not promote I'm sorry does promote creativity. The 1500 foot average is consistent with what was allowed in the Carneros Village live work. The larger unit does allow for a twobedroom live work unit with the large artist studio above the garage providing a better utility of space. The variance is to allow the second story to be placed at the same setback on both sides of the structures and not be stepped back in accordance with the code as well as to place the garage in front of the units. The um project location again is at the rear of the rear lot and is 55 ft across from an uh with an access easement through the front lot. The fire department does require that vehicular turnaround on site which lends itself to the placement of the garage and or on-site parking in the front portion of the lot. side setbacks for the second floor would reduce the building length on that main structure to 35 feet on that second floor, limiting the availability of the space um for the residential use. Um granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public health or safety um or welfare. Um and the neighboring property, multif family property um does not utilize a step back on that second level. So staff's recommendation is if planning commission determines that the findings can be met for the use permit design review exception um for the reduced rear setback and average live work unit size and the variance for the garage location and second floor setback for two new live work units. and staff recommends approval of the application um based on the findings provided um and the conditions of approval which does include specific live work conditions of

approval that are um in our code. Um or planning commission can choose to um make modifications or recommend modifications to the project that can be part of the conditions of approval um as well as whether the findings can be met. And then lastly, planning commission can request modifications from the applicant and request continuence of the matter to a future hearing date and the applicant is here. Thank you, Director Gates. Are there any commissioners that need to disclose any exparte communication with the applicant? No. Okay. With the Well, would uh any commissioners like to ask staff any questions? Commissioner Barton? Yes. Um is there information about the condition of the property beyond the rear property line. In other words, there's another parcel behind this parcel. Um I can see in the photograph. Yes. And so it looks like uh and I can't tell from this. Is it a driveway or are those are those rear yards? Do we know what the conditions are on the other side of the fence? Those are rear of They're the rear of those units. I do not know if they actually have yards as you're talking about. I can we can Google it real quick and we can get back to you. Well, I What's the street that those How do you access those units? What's the street parallel to Napa? It would be

Robinson Street. Third Street. basically probably one of your axis and there's some little sort of uh island neighborhoods back there with streets that don't connect to the rest of the grid system. I guess I'm just I'm asking because I I want to understand what the conditions are for the granting of the variance um given given the location of the building. So, it looks to me like the setback for those houses, not knowing whether they're yards or driveways or what it is, looks like the setback is probably at least 20 feet from the rear of those homes. So, Mike, correct? Did can I get an architect? Let me get it just a second. Um, so based on this Google that we just looked at, it looks like the front of their homes are their open space, their private open space, but I'll bring it up for you. Um, otherwise it looks like the rear are about maybe five feet from Oh, five feet. Yeah, the rear of these properties it looks like five feet from this as a rear yard setback. Well, it's Yeah, it's going to be Oh, it was a PUD. Okay. Well, um, hey Bill, if the question I was gonna ask is, are those two story units? I'm gonna double check. Tanoke. Does anybody know Tanoke?

Commissioner Willers, did you have another question? Okay. You said there this previously was approved for a lot split and so that has been codified. The final map has been recorded and all of the conditions of approval that still apply to that lot split including the tree uh removals and preservation and things like that are still applicable to this project. So they were included as part of um the conditions of approval for this project. Okay. And do you know whether the the new lot that has been created has been sold? It is the same owner um as who split it and um Mr. Beavenon is in the audience and can answer your questions around that. Okay. We do know it's for sale. Yes, it has not been sold. It has not been sold. Okay. Thank you. And as to the multifamily to the west that is story. Correct. Correct. And what type of a setback do they enjoy? Any any idea? Let's look. It's another PUD. So, that's a rental project. Expensive. Yeah. And they were And they were they were in theory rentable for period of no less than six months or something when they first come on the market. I don't know what the occupancy is now or how successful it is as a project. It's gated.

Um so these same these units here what you were asking about there is a gap between it looks like I don't your cursing my stuff oh I know there we go um so here's the lot right here here's the multif family here's that airport that you saw. Here's the existing building. Here's their parking. This is the lot back here. This is the multif family that's in the back. And that's why we are saying the private open space appears to be in the front of these structures. And then here's what they look like off the propert. And um in the plans right now um bring that back up. Um there are existing trees, mature trees that are being u kept and then there's two trees that are being removed or three trees right here. Um they're in the landscape plans that are provided part of your plan set. Okay. Any other questions for staff from the commission? All right. The applicant would like to come forward. George, if you have anything to add. Hi, good evening. Uh George Peven, uh 190 West Napa Street.

Um good evening. Thanks, uh for your time. Uh it's a big night. Um thanks to staff for getting us here and uh appreciate all the input. Um just I just take this moment to share some highlights. I think um um the I spoke with the the um multi-unit neighbors um to the west, Teresa and Ed, and um just shared the project with them. They're curious what's going on and um majority uh they're excited. Um the majority of my project uh you know kind of fronts their carport so they didn't really have any um any opinion about that um by design. And then um they would like me to add additional you know privet things like that like to um basically soften the edge of uh that you know the the front unit, you know, on top of the garage. So, I was I just like to share the neighbor input obviously to the east. It's just an open parking lot. So, um and uh it's a personal project. Um it has been listed um separately for sale um just it's you know just for uh I don't know um in case anyone wants to pick it up. Um if they don't, I'm going to personally um build this. So um anyway, I I just like to highlight it's an infill lot. We don't have too many of those. Um we need housing. Um it's a cute little lot. It's private. Um I originally split it in tending for like maybe a small single family uh for maybe my parents or something like that.

Um but in 2022, I guess single families no longer allowed um in mixed use. Um and then another highlight is uh fire because I only have 15 foot driveway. So fire uh limited the amount of units. I can't I can't have any any commercial use in the back because I don't have 20 foot driveway. And then the full, you know, kind of turn around that takes up third of the property. So, um, anyway, I just wanted to highlight a couple of those kind of constraints when, you know, we're all looking at additional housing needs and things like that. The live work use is with fire and all those constraints. Um, staff help me. Basically, this is the the only use allowed in in this lot and I'm maxing it out. I don't it barely pencils financially. So, um, but I like, you know, I created it and, you know, to offer some live work as, you know, the only possibility and and what I could do just from a development standpoint, I'm happy happy to do this. So, I'm doing my the best I can to max max things out. It's a couple cute little units. Um, you know, walkability obviously to the plaza and stuff like that. So, I'm excited about that. Thank you, George. Thank you. Any questions? I'm around. If any members of the commission would like to ask the applicant questions, Mr. Bernett, um I uh I'm glad to see something happening on this property and uh I've always wondered what was going to transpire there. I didn't realize you owned it. And um what uh so when a effort like this is made, the work you've put in to do this,

which I think is a is a creative and good use for the for the property. I like the whole idea of it, but um you've put all this work and time into it and here you are getting basically uh looking for approval and yet the property is still on the market. If someone buys it. If I understand the law correctly, uh their entitlements will extend to creating what it is you've designed. But if they wanted to do something else after buying the property, they'd have to go through this process all over again. Am I right? Correct. Um I'm uh wondering what the likelihood is of you actually doing it. Um yeah there's there's personal factors I mean you know investment rental you know we can have some tenants um we own the land free and clear so you know the construction cost I tried to stack the units in certain way and creative materials and things like that so you know as a you know a small business you don't really have like a 401k so this is you know you know trying to generate some future income are maybe passed along to my kids. So, or they could actually go in front of you guys, you know, in about 20 years. So, do you do you think the likelihood I mean, do you think there's a 50% chance of you doing this or 5%? More than more than 50, less than 80, I don't know. Uhuh. I don't think even ask. Yeah. It's just No, no. I'm not asking because of a matter of approval. I'm asking because I'm trying to understand uh this this process. Um there's been circumstances around town where we've gone through this process to approve a

project. I'm thinking of the Orchard Park uh project on Highway 12. Very modernistic, you know, almost a containerlike project that we approved for six units. That property's for sale. I've heard nothing about it coming to fruition. We go through all this time and effort, looking at these and reviewing them and giving our input and then you never know if it's going to happen. So, I'm I'm not trying to pin pin the man down. He's entitled to do what he wants. But but I'm I'm curious because I I I think this would be a lovely thing to have and I'm I'm in favor of of what you proposed and I don't have any problem with your variance, but you know, we just are we just Commissioner Barnett, I think you're willing to invest in this property, huh? So that's it. Thank you. I have a question for George. So clarify for me the the it's a lot split and the you're you've got the front unit listed and then would you so you're going to go and develop the back lot. Are you would are you would you are are you would you sell them? Would you I mean are you just just curious? You don't have to answer but No, I mean I know it's these are options that you have but um Uh they're two separate parcels, so that's gone. Um it was listed uh both for sale. We found out that they're two different buyers. So buyer front lot office buyer is like small insurance company like like myself like I have my office in there. Okay, great. Perfect. I'll buy that. I don't care about the back lot,

you know? It doesn't matter to me. Can I reverse the lot split? Like that's been brought up. Like I really don't care about the back lot. The second buyer is I really care about the back lot and I want to maximize it as a development project. It'd be a builder would be exactly who you think and I really don't care about the front. So I kind of want to like have the front for like x amount of you know. So I end up giving away the back lot or giving away the front you know financially. So now it's listed separately. So if somebody actually like buys the front, it's a rental property for me. My off I have some other office space. Um so I could sell the front and that'll give me, you know, loosen things up. I could start billing this right away, you know, for the back, you know, as a, you know, as a rental income. I could sell both of them and with the plans and we're going through plan check right now. So, you know, it it could be a very buildable build buildable, you know, holistic thing that, you know, owner occupied is perfect for this use. Um, another buyer came like a winery, it was perfect. It was the winery offices would be in the front and then staff would be actually in the back, which I I would love that, you know, for a buyer. Just learning who's coming to our town, you know, uh what this would be used for. Um, yeah, it's an infill lot. I mean, I think I'm stuck in conceptually like providing housing and, you know, I'm hundreds of thousands into this already, but um, you know, just a sweet little architectural spot, you know. Um, I don't know. I, you know, it's just something I'm interested in. So, thank you. Appreciate that. Uh, Mr. Latimer, um, what's the logic to violating the average size. So if you if we came back and said,

"Hey, it needs to be 12,200 square feet instead of 1500 square feet," do you build it? I would probably move the square footage around like as a redesign because I think I'm under on one of the units. I know what you're saying. I I would Why Why design it to be out of compliance? Um, I think it just happened that way just because I'm trying to actually I can levered some of the open space. Actually, I was preserving that courtyard. So, I have the fire turnaround taking a lot, right? And then I really wanted a really interesting because there's no views, you know, it's an interior lot. So, I wanted this like, you know, park. You walk back there and it's a park, you know, it's beautiful. And I'm saving this big oak tree and the covered walkway like frames it and it's a big open space. So that overage on the square footage I believe is uh space canaling over open space. So I would redu it's it's not um actually I don't think I'd be red the the you would come back at 1,200 square feet. Um it would just pull back that can levered space. The footprint would remain the same. So the question is is does that become uneconomic? I mean is there a reason why you're you know 25% above there's no there's uh no math around it really as far as economics just so on the screen right now you can see the difference that unit two is 927 which is over the minimum which is what we needed and it's the unit one um with the commercial and residential um so again, why not just build it to the size that's allowed? I don't I don't quite understand why. So, yeah. So, then we'd

be reducing the size of the unit one would have to be reduced um to under that 2,000 square feet. So, it's not So, remember it's the average like five years ago when I bought this, the zoning allowed I think seven units back here until I got in touch with fire So, so there's that. Yeah. Thank you, Miss Sunil. Okay. I'm not sure who my question's for, so if you'll stay there, George, that'd be great. Um, why is it have to be uh live work versus just units? Is there something about the code that Yeah, because it's been a year because we do have work units. We've got the We have those ones over on uh Highway 12. Not that many people are doing the work part. It's like their private hobby or whatever. They're not really using it for work. So, I'm just curious what are we required to do that? Is that something we need? I don't see it being a big marketing opportunity. It's a code related item where it's um in a second. Staff can answer. It's a driveway with Well, that's a combination of things. Multi-unit triggers commercial width fire access of 20 ft. So fire allowed two maximum two units which could each have an ADU but there's no no duplex. Duplexes aren't allowed in duplexes. So by definition it would be a duplex. So if I move this way it went that way. And then when we looked at doing more than two the fire costs because then you're installing stand pipes and everything because we would I think was what and alternative

means and measures would have to but why the work portion that's what I'm not understand because we don't allow duplexes but these aren't this is two units on a law doesn't SB9 allow that not in mixed use not in mixed use okay all right cool I learned something new thank These are all really, really good questions. Yeah. And while George is standing there, I'm going to make a comment. This is what this is, this is a really great example of what developing land requires. It it literally is a puzzle that has moving pieces and you you don't get them to stop moving until you actually cut a hole in the ground and start building. I'm emotional tonight like just to get here. So, um anyway. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have questions for the applicants? You ready for a motion? We have we have to I have to uh if there are no other have order in the chamber please. If there are no uh further questions from the commission I will open public comment. Ken Stokes Ske is the only member of the public still here. Uh I think it's a fascinating and interesting shoehorning of all the requirements into an infill project. So, I'd be supportive. Full disclosure, I also live in a George Beavenon designed house, but I had no idea this was on the agenda tonight. So, thank you. Thank you. Um, seeing no more members of the public in the gallery, we don't have any on Zoom. Correct. Okay. I will close public comment and I will bring it back to the

commission for comments. Mr. Willers. Um, like I said earlier, you know, I think this is a really great example of how to utilize a property within the restrictions of our development code while taking opportunity of SB9 lots opportunities. Um, it it finds a way to provide the housing that the city's looking for. It does it in an extremely creative way, George. Um, it this is a beautiful little project and I'd love to see it. I'd love to see you be able to build it and live in it or work in the artist studio, whatever, you know. Um, and and the variance item. Um, you know, my my question is what's on the other side of the fence? On the other side of the fence is a mixed use or not a mixed use but a multif family planned unit development with the minimum um setbacks to the rear fence. Um the bump on this project covers a set of doors for the lower floor. Provides a little extra bay of space at the upper floor. Um and then the mix of the variation of unit sizes rather than each unit being 1,200 square feet to get to the 12 to the 2400 square f feet. The variation of unit sizes allows for a mix of housing. Also a a you know a smaller unit is not necessarily a bad idea and a slightly larger unit in the same mix is more dynamic than having two of them exactly the same. So, at every level, I support um this project. I I think it's a really a really clever way and and I can appreciate the dancing that you've had

to do um to get to this point, but I think it's a really clever solution on this property. Any other members of the commission like to make comments? Is there a motion? Well, I'm happy to make one, but I actually think that it would be more meaningful for Commissioner Willers to All right. I agree. Uh this is exactly what we what we need in town. And I have to say, having watched that property through its 10year history that uh I can remember, I've been wondering what was going to happen back there. And I had clients approached me. They were interested in purchasing it. I I do loans. I don't do real estate. And I kept telling them, "Yeah, buy it. It's a cool property. So, I'm so excited to make a motion for the approval of resolution UA-24-25 approving the application use permit design review exception for reduced rear rear setback and average live work size and variances for garage and second floor setback for two new live work units. You can do whatever you want in the work portion located at 369 West Napa Street. Second that. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Aorman Jenkins, I. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Latimer, yes. Vice Chair Hyrick. Hi. Youth member Person? Yes. The motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. Have a good night. Okay, moving right along. Uh, we will close the public hearing for tonight's meeting and move on to items for discussion. See no matters listed. There

any Yeah, I don't usually list it because I come up with it the day during the meeting. not during sometimes during um so I do want to um mention that um there was a delay in getting the design review ordinance to you. So my intent is to do it at the next meeting with the hope that the attorney is done reviewing um for that. Um also, um if you know, we'll continue to bring things to you only if design review can't meet quorum. Um and so just giving you that heads up again. Um I don't know that we actually have anything next month for them anyways, but um in case we did and they weren't able to make quorum that it would come to you guys. Um I um am going to call meetings for the ad hocs um coming up. I'm also reinvigorating the journal plan task force meetings. I am starting to get um I hoping to have three elements by the end of the month. Um so in June to start the general plan task force and then also the t the ad hocs for the commissions um to start looking at those. Um, you know, just to to reiterate, I mean, I um said he left again. Um, so um for those that um had those questions earlier today, just reiterate um if they have specific questions, please send them to me um and I will um meet with them again and talk about the process.

Um but key aspects again for the general plan process, it's a long game. Um we're going to have multiple opportunities for participation, not just at commission meetings, but at the general plan task force. Um also, uh just for clarification, study sessions are not intended to be back and forth with the public because you are a commission. It's still supposed to be regulated under the Rosenberg rules. Um, if we were to have a community meeting, that's when staff can do that kind of interaction or in, you know, individual meetings. They can also meet with you guys individually if you choose. Um, but just remember this will be coming before you for your recommendation. Um, at the end of the day, the intent of an EIR is to study um, its potential impact and then that provides you all with the information um, to then make your recommendations if something's different. That's kind of also the intent of why we wanted to do the ad hoc around creating the development code and kind of understanding how that would work moving forward as well. um with these different changes. Um I went to the California Preservation Conference last week and presented um at two sessions uh focused on housing and historic preservation. Um mostly the first one was mostly just about all the housing bills and how they affect historic preservation. Um and then the second was um focused on um I was a moderator and Sacramento has just done their update to their um design standards for historic uh resources and their historic districts um of which they have thousand. um and their goal was around middle housing and creating actual development standards

instead of guidelines um to meet all the new requirements. Um so be interested to I'm going to look at that and then also heard from Portland has some really interesting design uh standards because they don't have squa. So, it's kind of an interesting aspect, an interesting speaker to have brought uh to the California Preservation Conference. Um I think that concludes Oh, last thing is uh the last meeting um the city council adopted the fire map and approved the contract for um an extension of the general plans contract for additional services. We're gonna contract with fair peers as a sub under our general plan consultant to do the evacuation study um which is required on our safety elements now that we have um a high fire zone. So just give you guys an update. Jennifer quick um request. It seems that there's a pretty common misconception that there's actually an application for development before um the city as it relates to the Sebastian um parcel. Um can you just briefly again address that? Sure. There is no application. Um the only thing that is under discussion and being uh looked at in the environmental is a general plan land use change. Um and so there's no zoning, it's just general plan lounge use right now. Um we would after the general plan is adopted or concurrent with that, you could do the actual zoning map change um and some the zoning information. So that is to be determined

of whether that happens concurrently or a long time after, short time after. Um so we'll work through that. Um I it's on my list um within before the end of the month when we start doing the elements to get an FAQ um up on our site around a lot of these same questions that keep occurring. Thank you. Appreciate it. That was my question for you is when we're approached by people in the public, what what's what's the short answer? What is the you know what's my what what are my talking points to address this and because I've heard everything from well the applications are in and there's literally changing the density online. So um FAQ would be great. Yeah. So we'll have an FAQ that you can point for people to but of course as always you can point them to me and how grateful we are for that. Um, anything further, Mr. Bernett? So, do I understand correctly that the council uh approved the formation of the affordable housing task fund ad hoc? And so when you say you ready to constitute those, that's one of the ad hocs that you're ready to have initiated. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And any and anyone else who might decide it's important. We're we're all Sorry, just one more thing. We are going to um Jacob's going to bring the signs back again to a study session. We're going to talk about it

and then recreate the ad hoc for signs specifically um after we have that conversation and a little bit more focused conversation. Great. Thanks. Uh moving on to the next item, commissioner reports and comments. Members of the commission have anything to report or any general comments? Uh, Miss O'Neal, I just want to clarify that our meeting in June is on Tuesday, right? Okay, Miss Bernett. Well, and it goes back to some my earlier remarks. I'm just curious whether in any cities and in your experience um uh with other cities there's ever sort of a a checkback or a followup to projects that get approved but then nothing happens. So that there's for me there's no sense of closure. I mean, if a project gets built that's been approved, I have a sense of closure about it. But driving down Highway 12 the other day past that parcel which was two was two commercial parcels fronting on Highway 12 across from uh wherever wherever it was. Uh, I'm not sure it's the uh it's kind of near the old barn and and so forth. Um, you know, we we had a wonderful hearing. There was great encouragement. It sounded like a project was happening and now I see there's a for sale sign there and obviously nothing has happened. Um, do you ever hear from the applicants who said, "Oh, by the way, we know we went through the permit process. We got the approvals, but we've decided to sell the property or we're not going to build it or

anything like that." And when that happens, can that information come back to the planning commission so I can either let something go and accept the change of reality or or something rather than harboring fantasies about what's going to be done and and how wonderful we've done our jobs. So it is not a reflection on how well you've done your job or not. Um it's called economic forces. Um which we have no control over. Um so sometimes you see projects that are not actually the owner. You see a developer maybe coming in that's not doesn't own the property but the owner has approved them to go through the process. Um there there's a lot of different scenarios. What I will say, if you don't see it back before you and you don't see anything in two years, two years now, two years, two years, it's not happening. It's done because it would have to be restarted all over again. So, in our list of resolutions, we're tracking how like when they're supposed to expire. And so, we even talked about one today that's expiring in November this year that we haven't seen any traction on. So, I did reach out and say you need to come in and ask for an extension um because there's not enough time to get enough going on that project specifically in the time frame uh to lock it in. Is there the potential for creating a a web accessible document or is there already a web accessible way for us to look at approved applications and the timing of the approvals so that I don't have to bother

you and can verify myself for what the status of an approved permitu uh uh is um you could Oh, status that's different. Um dates, yes, but status not necessarily. Um well, if I if I knew that if I knew I could look at something and it said the date of the permit approval and the current date and I knew it was two years and nothing had ever come of it, then I could move it out of my consciousness and forget about it. Okay. So, we what we're looking into is um upgrading in our GIS system and connecting our permitting system to GIS so you can locationwise see what's going on. So whether it's an entitlement being requested or a building permit that's active or been submitted. Um that way you can that that's the the C and the status that would be the way to do it. Um because that would be the easiest in using within our apps and our systems that we already have than trying to contact or fill out a spreadsheet. Make sense? Okay. Well, I I await the fulfillment of your vision. I would agree that if there would be value in just finding out if they're going forward or not and if they would share with us why they aren't. None of it's like really concrete. They can tell us anything they want, but it's it would be good feedback for us to understand what obstacles they faced. Was it financing? Was it marketing? They decided this wasn't a marketable property or what. But I don't know. I know that you don't have the bandwidth, but if there was a way we could But I think it would be

interesting to get that kind of feedback as to what obstacles they hit and why they decided not to go forward. Rising cost of construction. I can answer you. Okay. Any other comments? I do. Oh, go ahead. It's many things. It's not just cost of construction. It's it's the dynamic of development actually. And so, you know, um, like Jennifer said, you know, some developers will take an option on on a property, get an approved project, decide that they really don't want to do that, right? And walk away from their option essentially because the timing just isn't right for them. So, you know, it's a tough thing. Tonight's little project, infill project, was a really good example of all of the minutia that every project has to face, large or small. You know, that project was formed because of having a fire truck get back there. No matter what we said in the development, right? Speaking of status, what is the of the proposed Montalo project seeing as if are we are we the ER was released on Monday and so it has a 45day comment period through um June 24th and the indictment of the owners has nothing to do with the company or everything is ongoing. Okay, on that note, I have a comment. I would like to warmly welcome Mr. Latimer to the deis here and thank him for his willingness to participate in the discourse. Um, we're kind of in an era of what I've termed to be a I don't know

kind of a culture of apathy as it relates to local boards and local commissions and involvement at the local level. I mean, our political, you know, framework is often very binary and and in terms of the national paradigm and what's going on, but you know, 90% of what we deal with and and see and hear and drive on on a daily basis is handled at the local level. Taxes, your public safety, and uh and everything in between. So, that's a long way of saying thank you. I appreciate your willingness to serve and welcome to uh Miss Nent as a full commissioner, although I don't think she's ever not sat as a full commissioner. Maybe one meeting, right? Right. Yeah. If there's ever if there was ever a time to be involved on the planning commission, it would be now. I mean there's lots lots of change and um it's a time of of great consequence to be involved. So thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn to our chair first? Kudos to our chair. Oh thank you. Yeah. Now move to that's it. Ajourned 758.